GoSkins561 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 My buddy has a samuri sword, that thing chops down small trees with ease. It also appears the kid had a set of balls and knew how to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Reading over the posts since yesterday..I did note that when I concocted my scenario about the kid on the car porch, I did lose sight of the fact the child was 10. Depending on the situation, you could still be justified in cutting him...HOWEVER..it depends on the circumstances. If the kid has some sort of weapon...that changes things. Obviously, if he pulls out a gun or blade slicing him is acceptable if you get your chance. If you think he has a weapon, i.e. when you confront him he goes for a large lump in his pocket...you could be justified. If you happen to be a 60 year old 5'02, 130 pound woman or man, and the kids is especially large for his age...You could be justified. For the record, if I saw an unarmed 10 year old on my car porch, with no weapon...and I had no reason to believe he has one, i.e. the circumstances change. I think I could safely handle him. I'm 6'01 and 250 pounds. The rules aren't the same for everybody. Like I said earlier. Every individual situation has to be judged on it's own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Reading over the posts since yesterday..I did note that when I concocted my scenario about the kid on the car porch, I did lose sight of the fact the child was 10. Depending on the situation, you could still be justified in cutting him...HOWEVER..it depends on the circumstances. If the kid has some sort of weapon...that changes things. Obviously, if he pulls out a gun or blade slicing him is acceptable if you get your chance. If you think he has a weapon, i.e. when you confront him he goes for a large lump in his pocket...you could be justified. If you happen to be a 60 year old 5'02, 130 pound woman or man, and the kids is especially large for his age...You could be justified. For the record, if I saw an unarmed 10 year old on my car porch, with no weapon...and I had no reason to believe he has one, i.e. the circumstances change. I think I could safely handle him. I'm 6'01 and 250 pounds. The rules aren't the same for everybody. Like I said earlier. Every individual situation has to be judged on it's own merits. Welcome to pinko lib-coward crybaby land. Come sit by me. I've got chips and guacamole. good post by the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Reading the update...if the investigation is accurate to the events. I have zero problem with any of this. Nothing unreasonable was done by the student. The idiot criminal committed suicide when he decided to challenge a sword-wielding college student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 This thread is up there for most dumb post per capita, EVER in the tailgate. To those of you that think you can kill anyone who intrudes into your home, good luck with the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 This thread is up there for most dumb post per capita, EVER in the tailgate.To those of you that think you can kill anyone who intrudes into your home, good luck with the judge. When it comes to the safety of my kids, I will shoot now, defend myself later. Hopefully I will never be put in that situation, with that said, if someone breaks into your house, claiming self defense shouldn't be that difficult even if you shoot him in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Welcome to pinko lib-coward crybaby land. Come sit by me. I've got chips and guacamole. good post by the way... lol, I'm not an UNREASONABLE person...although many people here immediately assume otherwise. I will admit, that 9 times out of 10 I'm going to come down on the side of the person who's home was broken into, etc. I believe in self-defense. I believe in what's mine is mine, and you have no right etc. etc. I have no problem with killing, cutting, maiming, choking, releasing the hounds, etc. on anybody who is in my home that isn't supposed to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 This thread is up there for most dumb post per capita, EVER in the tailgate.To those of you that think you can kill anyone who intrudes into your home, good luck with the judge. I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6. Thanks for the advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 the point is just beacuse someone is unexpectedly in your house, that doesn't give you the legal right to kill them, and for good reason -- because situations like this exist. i don't know why so many people have so much trouble getting their head around the simple concept. nobody is saying you can't kill out of self defense, and nobody is defending criminals. i think some of us would just like to point out that the "self defense" defense does not legally cover protecting your playstation. Just curious. You agree that people have the right to defend their playstations, right? And they have the right of self defence. And that if the intruder attacks that person over the playstation, it's no longer about the playstation, it's about self-defence. Right? Because that's really what's at issue here. I'm sure the police could care less about what property was at stake, and just want to make sure who attacked who, and if the student could reasonably have thought his life was at risk. You and other people want to talk about the fact you shouldn't kill over property, or hypotheticals like shooting people in the back, why not start another thread? Because you're deviating from this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6. Thanks for the advice :applause: awesome quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 You and other people want to talk about the fact you shouldn't kill over property, or hypotheticals like shooting people in the back, why not start another thread? Because you're deviating from this one. Thank you:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Just curious. You agree that people have the right to defend their playstations, right? And they have the right of self defence. And that if the intruder attacks that person over the playstation, it's no longer about the playstation, it's about self-defence. Right? right. no reasonable person would dispute that. Because that's really what's at issue here. I'm sure the police could care less about what property was at stake, and just want to make sure who attacked who, and if the student could reasonably have thought his life was at risk. well, sure. to be honest i am undecided on this particular situation for a variety of reasons. what i object to is all the people who apparently think if they discover a person tresspassing they get a free pass to murder them. that is the attitude, expressed by multiple posters, that i was objecting to. You and other people want to talk about the fact you shouldn't kill over property, or hypotheticals like shooting people in the back, why not start another thread? Because you're deviating from this one. this thread is inevitably delving into hypotheticals because the facts of the case are unknown and likely will never be known. the unfortunate truth is that at this point, both the kid and the cops have every reason to corroborate each other on the self-defense thing, otherwise the kid could go to jail and/or the cops could be punished for not telling this kid stay the **** inside and not go prowling around for a suspected perp in the area. if everyone agrees that this was self defense then nobody gets hurt except a peice of **** burglar. which, you know, fine, whatever. i'm not losing sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattGeorge85 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Update: Just saw on News 4 this morning that this modern day samurai will not be charged with any crime. No link, I saw it on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Did your buddy break in and lunge at the property owner ? That ends it for me. The guy protected himself and his property. This is pretty much all that needs to be said about this subject as far as I'm concerned. the point is just beacuse someone is unexpectedly in your house, that doesn't give you the legal right to kill them, and for good reason -- because situations like this exist. i don't know why so many people have so much trouble getting their head around the simple concept. I don't know how people don't get the simple concept that if a felon enters a house that is not their's, no matter what age that felon may be, and acts in a threatening manner toward the homeowner, yes, the homeowner has the legal right defend himself and his family self. If that ends up in a self-defense murder, so be it. People who don't get the crap kicked out of them, shot to death, or sliced in half when they enter someone's home, uninvited, and presents a threat to the lives of inhabitants, well, they are lucky. This really isn't that difficult of a concept. I see you are okay with self-defense killing. So, in your opinion, who makes the call about whether the killing was made in defense of a playstation or fear of one's life? Who gets to decide the true intentions of the homeowner??? Bottom line for me: police can, should, and will look into this. If the Hopkins' student's story checks out, then good, let him go and allow him to move on in his life... (and probably give him a thank-you at the same for helping clear the streets of these types of people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8H71eQT1UY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 To those of you that think you can kill anyone who intrudes into your home, good luck with the judge. Lol, you honestly believe that someone is not only going to be convicted by a jury of 12, but then be harshly sentenced by a judge for defending his home and family from an intruder? Where the heck would this happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stickyshooZ Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Lol, you honestly believe that someone is not only going to be convicted by a jury of 12, but then be harshly sentenced by a judge for defending his home and family from an intruder? Where the heck would this happen? Depends on the circumstances. Small details can make a world of difference in terms of what they choose to charge you with and what they can 'prove'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 right. no reasonable person would dispute that.well, sure. to be honest i am undecided on this particular situation for a variety of reasons. what i object to is all the people who apparently think if they discover a person tresspassing they get a free pass to murder them. that is the attitude, expressed by multiple posters, that i was objecting to. this thread is inevitably delving into hypotheticals because the facts of the case are unknown and likely will never be known. the unfortunate truth is that at this point, both the kid and the cops have every reason to corroborate each other on the self-defense thing, otherwise the kid could go to jail and/or the cops could be punished for not telling this kid stay the **** inside and not go prowling around for a suspected perp in the area. if everyone agrees that this was self defense then nobody gets hurt except a peice of **** burglar. which, you know, fine, whatever. i'm not losing sleep. Well police advise you steer clear of such criminal activity, but no they aren't required to tell you to stay away, nor do you always have to especially on your property. Re. hypotheticals: Cases like these uncertain and confusing enough without adding imaginary stuff. It just irks me that if the situation doesn't support someone's ideology, then they try changing the scenario, making up a different situation where their ideology IS the correct answer. Straw-manning if necessary. People have done it in this thread, and on lots of issues, both sides of the abortion debate for example. I've done it before, I can see where it's a normal reaction sometimes, just seen it too much lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (Edit - If someone broke into your house,) Are people actually willing to sit there and see what a criminal might do instead of taking action and defending your property that has already been violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (Edit - If someone broke into your house,)Are people actually willing to sit there and see what a criminal might do instead of taking action and defending your property that has already been violated? If I was in that situation I would yell at the intruder tell him to get the **** out or I would kill him. I would then decide based on his reaction. seems reasonable to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 If I was in that situation I would yell at the intruder tell him to get the **** out or I would kill him. I would then decide based on his reaction.seems reasonable to me SO you are willing to give someone a second opportunity even though they have already violated you/ your house/ and your family? Suppose they do run and the police do not catch the said burgler? I don't think these people deserve a chance to run or escape, I am shooting now and explaining later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 SO you are willing to give someone a second opportunity even though they have already violated you/ your house/ and your family? Suppose they do run and the police do not catch the said burgler? I don't think these people deserve a chance to run or escape, I am shooting now and explaining later. Sometimes you might be justified in doing that, I won't deny that. On the other hand, do you just shoot the neighbor's ten year old kid in your garage rummaging through your soda pop? I hope not. There is no set answer, perfect for all scenarios. The total facts of the situation matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 the point is just beacuse someone is unexpectedly in your house, that doesn't give you the legal right to kill them, and for good reason -- because situations like this exist. i don't know why so many people have so much trouble getting their head around the simple concept. nobody is saying you can't kill out of self defense, and nobody is defending criminals. i think some of us would just like to point out that the "self defense" defense does not legally cover protecting your playstation. If he enters the house, the homeowner should assume he means harm and disable him in whatever manner he can. I'm not asking questions or trying to discern intent. You've entered my home uninvited. The drunk would be at fault. Not the homeowner. People are responsible for their own stupidity. If you get so drunk you don't know what house you are entering, you've put yourself in a dangerous situation. Would the drunk "deserve" to be killed. Absolutely not. Would the homeowner be justified in shooting him. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 but was it a Hitori Hanzo sword??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 SO you are willing to give someone a second opportunity even though they have already violated you/ your house/ and your family? Suppose they do run and the police do not catch the said burgler? I don't think these people deserve a chance to run or escape, I am shooting now and explaining later. yes I am willing to give someone the opportunity to save their life, and not make me go through the hassle of killing them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.